Corpus 1,273 assessed · 1,174 scored · 643 reproduced ≥75 · 169 flagged ·∅ 74.1/100
← Dataset search

SRR6189083

SRA

Provenance — who produced it, who reused it

Linked to 1 papers in the literature. Roles are inferred factual signals (who deposited the data vs who reused it), with counts — never a judgement about any author.

Reused by

1 further paper cites this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.

Deep data QC

71/100 · C

Standardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured

What this means
claude:haiku

Whole-genome sequencing; marginal (grade C). Adapter contamination (49.46%) is the primary failure point, driving the low score despite adequate coverage (26.4×, extrapolated) and acceptable Q30 (84.1%). Provisional verdict pending measured validation. Use only if contaminant-tolerance is high.

Data type / assay
WGS
Organism
Gallus gallus
Instrument
Illumina HiSeq 2000
Platform
ILLUMINA
N numbers (samples, groups)
1 runs
Metrics (value · how obtained)
checksum ok yes reported
total bases 29007953889 reported
total reads 105219561 reported
mean coverage 26.4 extrapolated
n content pct 0.001 measured
pct q20 bases 93.7 measured
pct q30 bases 84.1 measured
gc content pct 41.8 measured
mean read length 138.6 measured
mean base quality 33.7 measured
adapter content pct 49.46 measured
duplication rate pct 0.71 measured
How this grade was computed
Weighted mean of 4 scored metric(s) → 71/100

The C grade is a transparent weighted average. Each metric below scored from 0–100% against the published WGS thresholds, weighted by its importance; nothing is hidden or subjective.

mean coverage 26.4 extrapolated ×1.2 84%
pct q30 bases 84.1 measured ×1 71%
duplication rate pct 0.71 measured ×0.5 100%
adapter content pct 49.46 measured ×0.4 0%
QC cost 24 s compute

measured = computed from the data · extrapolated/reported = derived or from the repository · dq-1.0

Scientific quality

Based on hands-on reproduction of the papers that use this dataset. A reproducible paper that stands on this data is positive evidence; a flagged one is a prompt to look closer — never a verdict on the dataset itself without the evidence.

1 studies use it 1 reproduced mean score 91